Contradicting Bruce R. McConkie

When I was a missionary I discovered an instance where someone directly and publically contradicted Elder Bruce R. McConkie. Probably the main reason the person did not get into hot water was that the person was Bruce R. McConkie. (Note: this is not about the priesthood policy.)

Continue Reading

In 1976 Elder McConkie wrote the following in the Ensign concerning prayer:

It is true that when we pray to the Father, the answer comes from the Son, because “there is … one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim. 2:5.) Joseph Smith, for instance, asked the Father, in the name of the Son, for answers to questions, and the answering voice was not that of the Father but of the Son, because Christ is our advocate, our intercessor, the God (under the Father) who rules and regulates this earth.

He later (1978) published the book, The Promised Messiah, in which he wrote the following two passages:

There is nothing clearer or plainer than this. We pray to the Father, not the Son; but according to the laws of intercession, advocacy, and mediation, our answers come from the Son. Reference to nearly every section in the Doctrine and Covenants bears this out. (p. 335)

...[L]et us now set forth with some particularity the true form of prayer and show how and in what manner both the Father and the Son are involved.

Proper prayers are made to the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost. The Father answers prayers, but he does it through the Son, into whose hands he has committed all things. (p. 557)

In 1982 Elder McConkie gave a speech at BYU wherein he attacked the published views of BYU religion professor George Pace concerning our having a personal relationship with Jesus.

...[A] current and unwise book, which advocates gaining a special relationship with Jesus, contains this sentence: "Because the Savior is our mediator, our prayers go through Christ to the Father, and the Father answers our prayers through his Son."

This is plain sectarian nonsense. Our prayers are addressed to the Father, and to him only. They do not go through Christ, or the Blessed Virgin, or St. Genevieve or along the beads of a rosary. We are entitled to "come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16).

And I rather suppose that he who sitteth upon the throne will choose his own ways to answer his children, and that they are numerous. Perfect prayer is addressed to the Father, in the name of the Son; and it is uttered by the power of the Holy Ghost; and it is answered in whatever way seems proper by him whose ear is attuned to the needs of his children.

I don't know whether Elder McConkie actually changed his mind or had just forgotten what he had written before, and I guess it doesn't really matter; Elder McConkie probably forgot more than I've ever known about the scriptures. But apparently the line between "true form" and "sectarian nonsense" could be a little thin and fuzzy, and Elder McConkie could confidently disagree with his own confident assertions.

Continue reading...

Da Vinci's Code: DNA

I have not read the book or seen the movie, but The Da Vinci Code is sure getting a lot of press. My wife read the book and has pretty much shrugged her shoulders about the hype. Her attitude is basically: It's just a book.

Well anyway, in the wake of the controversy, here's a bit of fluff from the Philadelphia Inquirer about Jesus's DNA.

I wrote about genetics and the virgin birth last fall and found two surprising conclusions. First, most Catholic and Protestant theologians do not get angry or insulted by this question. Second, they don't agree.

They do concur that Jesus was not a supernatural being. The doctrine of incarnation says he's fully human, wrote Georgetown University professor of theology John Haught in an e-mail. "To imply that Jesus is somehow exempt from ordinary natural laws and biological patterns (including having DNA and male chromosomes) would, in my view, be a failure to take the incarnation seriously."

This is hard to square with the virgin birth in light of modern biology. It's true that asexual reproduction, called parthenogenesis, happens in some fish, insects, and even a lizard species, and artificially in a few mammals, through cloning.

But if cloning or parthenogenesis were involved, Jesus would look a lot more like Mary. He'd be a woman, for one thing, since females always beget females.

In humans, females package some of their DNA in two matched X chromosomes, males in a single X and Y. So if you're a male, there's only one way you could have gotten your Y chromosome, and that's from your biological father.

Where would Jesus have gotten his Y?

Some, such as Protestant theologian Wesley Wildman of Boston University, say Jesus got his Y chromosome and half his DNA from a human father, most likely Joseph. What he got from God was something more spiritual.

Others, however, say that God must have fashioned at least part of Jesus' DNA himself, through a miracle. "It's not God's sperm... but God creates something like a sperm and caused it to fertilize Mary's egg," said Ron Cole-Turner, a professor and ordained minister at the Presbyterian Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. That was also the majority view expressed by those who wrote in after my initial virgin birth column.

I know that some LDS folks think they've got the answer to this all wrapped up. However that answer raises all kinds of biological/theological questions. Perhaps we should just stick with "we don't know".

Continue reading...

Church Policies: Infertility Issues

This is part of a series of posts containing information on Church policies on medical and scientific issues.

Artificial Insemination

Artificial insemination with semen from anyone but the husband is discouraged....Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved.

Donation of Sperm

The donation of sperm is discouraged.

In Vitro Fertilization

In vitro fertilization using semen other than that of the husband or an egg [from anyone] other than the wife is discouraged. However, this is a personal matter that ultimately must be left to the judgment of the husband and wife.

Surrogate Motherhood

The Church discourages surrogate motherhood.

Source: Church Handbook of Instructions, 1989, as quoted in "Policies, Practices, and Procedures" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

Continue reading...

Various and Sundry Items

Here are some items I've collected that others might be interested in.

Elder Packer gave a talk about children and motherhood recently and hit his version of evolution along the way, causing Gary to do a victory dance. More here.

Mormon Wasp picked up on the talk and its discussion of birth rates and pointed out some other recent comments by Apostles. I thought it was a good time to point out my breakdown of General Authority family size.

There has been discussion in the news (here or here) about some purported massive pyramids in Bosnia. Professional scientists say they are just hills formed by techtonic forces, but Bosnians appear to have their national pride wrapped up in the issue. Red State Rabble makes a connection to Intelligent Design.

A hunter from Idaho shot an killed a polar bear--except it was actually an polar-grizzly bear hybrid. Such things have happened in captivity, but this seems to be the first found in the wild. Apparently bear mating is a somewhat involved process, so this was not the result of a quick and casual contact. Of course the important lesson here is that Noah didn't have to have both grizzly and polar bears aboard the ark, just a representative of the bear "kind." (I'm joking.)

The Nebraska's Ashfall Fossil Beds have been designated a national natural landmark. They are remarkable for their fossil preservation. The animals include "rhinos, camels, three-toed horses, and other vertebrates that were killed and buried by ash from a huge volcanic eruption some 12 million years ago." More information here.

Millenial Star records Dan Peterson's somewhat humorous experience with correlation.

Continue reading...

Alternate Voices: Return of Elder Oaks

Discussion of "alternate voices," a term derived from Elder Oaks' 1989 talk, has been revived recently in the bloggernacle by the reproduction of this essay by Armand Mauss.

Elder Oaks had a little more to say on the topic, so I thought I would post it. Here is the meat of it:

Continue Reading

Over the years, persons of scholarly inclination have published journals and organized lectures and symposia to study the history of the Church, reason about the principles of the gospel, and share insights in the application of gospel principles to contemporary problems. I have sometimes been asked, "What is wrong with such efforts?" In my personal opinion, so long as they are private and personal and do not imply Church sponsorship or approval, there is nothing wrong with such efforts, provided those who participate understand and observe the limits of study and reason in such an undertaking. Unfortunately many do not.

The problem I have observed in such activities is that for some participants, these efforts are not a prelude to or supplementary of faith and revelation, but are (or come to be) substitutes for them. That is not the Lord's Way. (The Lord's Way, p. 57)

On a personal note, I first read the original talk while on my mission. I was only vaguely aware of such publications as Sunstone and Dialogue at that time, but I thought I knew exactly what Elder Oaks was talking about. Earlier in my mission I had seen a video of an epidsode of the John Ankerberg Show featuring Ed Decker, Sandra Tanner, and (if I remember right) Walter Martin. Ed Decker went through the endowment--quickly but in detail. The counter-balance was a recorded interview with some stake president that was inserted at various points in the program.

I think Elder Oaks' talk takes on a whole different flavor in this light. I guess my point is that even if the LDS "intellectual community" was his primary target, he also hit some other targets dead on.

Continue reading...

Tiktaalik in Context

Remember Tiktaalik, the fish-tetrapod transitional fossil that was in the news a few weeks ago? One of the discoverers has written this essay (scroll down just a little). It's an easy non-technical read. Here's a taste.

When Romer did his work, in the 1920s through the 1960s, there was only one early tetrapod known: a limbed creature recovered from 365-million-year-old-rocks in East Greenland...

It is no longer easy to distinguish a fish from a tetrapod. The arctic fossils were only the tip of a paleontological iceberg; after subsequent discoveries in Latvia, Scotland, and China, the distinction is now so fuzzy that many of my colleagues do not even try to define tetrapods by ticking off a list of features. Our earlier definition of tetrapods distinguished them from fish by their possession of limbs. In what group, then, do we put our fish with wrists? What other characteristics might help us? Perhaps we could use lungs to distinguish tetrapods from fish. Then we would have to explain why lungfish use gills and lungs both, yet have fully formed fish fins. Scales? Even here, we run into the same problem, because early limbed and lunged animals also have belly scales. Indeed, the difficulty that our taxonomists have in distinguishing tetrapods from fish is the inevitable result of finding fossil intermediates.

(via Carl Zimmer at The Loom.)

Continue reading...

Conceptions of Conception

Kevin Barney at BCC has an interesting post about the suggestion that Paul's advice contained in 1 Corinthians 11 about women covering their hair was based on an ancient understanding of how the male and female reproductive systems worked. I'm no ancient scholar, but I think it is an interesting idea at any rate.

Whatever the case, Paul wasn't the last prophetic figure to use an incorrect understanding of reproduction in instruction.

Continue Reading

Brigham Young is reported to have said:

It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve-this should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other Men had the seed within him to propagate his species. But not the Woman. She conceives the seed but she does not produce it. Consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses's dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. (John Nuttall diary)

Of course we now know that both men and women produce "seed." In fact, just for fun here are a couple of pictures. (Taken from here.)

This first one is of a seminiferous tubule of a rat. The circular structure in the center is an individual tubule seen in cross-section. Working from the edges inward, special cells will undergo division and maturation to produce sperm that begin their journey (likely to their ultimate doom).



And for balance, here is a developing follicle (unknown species). The blue arrow points to the actual egg.



Alright, histology class is over.

Continue reading...

Book Review: Lengthen Your Stride

I've finished reading the print version of Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball, written by Edward Kimball, the son of Spencer. I say the print version because for those who are not already aware, the book comes with an accompanying CD that contains the final manuscript with more extensive footnotes, as well as a working draft that, in some instances, contains more extensive discussion than the final draft. The CD also contains photographs, articles, other biographies of both Spencer and Camilla, and audio clips.

Edward Kimball co-authored a previous biography that covered Spencer's life up until his presidency. The research and interviews that went into this book are no afterthought; Edward watched his father's presidency with a future updated biography in mind.

There are several reasons to buy and read this biography:

Continue Reading

1. Get to know Pres. Kimball

Without knowing President Kimball personally it is impossible to know how well this biography stands in proxy. Nevertheless the many rememberances of people as reported in the book seem to give insight into his personality.

2. Behind the scenes look at the Church

Edward did not have access to any of Spencer's office papers, but he did have access to Spencer's personal journal, counselors, other General Authorities, and Spencer's personal secretary, Arthur Haycock. We get a glimpse of what managing the institution of the Church is like, including a few details of what happens at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Twelve in the temple.

3. Revelation on the Priesthood

The highlight of the Kimball administration was the revelation extending the Priesthood to all worthy males, ie. blacks. As Richard Cracroft wrote in a recent review in BYU Magazine:

At the center of Lengthen Your Stride is the capstone of President Kimball's presidency, the hosanna-shout that resounds through the five chapters that Edward Kimball devotes to the June 1978 revelation extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy males. These wonderful chapters will become the definitive description of the revelation for the history of the Church. They provide a careful composite of accounts by and interviews with some of the General Authorities who were present.

In fact Spencer specifically asked Edward to cover the 1978 revelation. The book also discusses the history of the ban and the process of questioning that occured prior to receipt of the revelation.

4. Candor on controversial topics

Again from Cracroft's review:

The biography treats with directness and candor the major issues the Church dealt with during those exciting years of growth and change and revelation. So unflinching are the reflections that the publisher felt it necessary to preface the book with an unusual disclaimer: "The publisher and the biographer do not agree on the interpretations . . . given to a number of events, or the choices of characterization of some of the people. The author and the publisher have had open and energetic discussions on these issues, and there has been some give and take in the editorial process" (p. ix). One apparent compromise is the welcome and unprecedented addition of a CD...

In addition to sources listed above, Edward skimmed through all of the issues of Sunstone and Dialogue, and both publications are repeatedly referenced in the footnotes (on the CD). If you read Dialogue's review of its own history, many of the items discussed therein--especially those that involved interactions with General Authorities--are treated at least briefly in this book. The book certainly cannot be viewed as an official publication of the Church, but Deseret Book is closely tied to the Church and is careful about what it publishes. Thankfully one can now cite a major book from Deseret Book on some of these issues. By "cite" I mean that when Bro. X in the ward wants to know how you know, say, that Elder McConkie admitted that Brigham Young taught confusing things about Adam, or that until Pres. Kimball's administration prayer circles were also held outside of temples, or that authorized plural marriages were performed after the 1890 Manifesto, you need not refer him to sources that he may discount because they are not mainstream. Such things may be available in other mainstream publications, but they are concentrated in this book (or on the CD).

Because of it's open and balanced approach, this is a book that both builds and informs testimony. I'll end with this story: In 1981 Spencer's health was slipping and his mind increasingly became foggy. One day his thoughts were clear and he discussed with Arthur Haycock his intention to call Gordon B. Hinckley as another counselor, and Neal A. Maxwell to the Twelve. The callings were extended and the appropriate business conducted. It was not long until the fog came back. With the other two counselors aging as well, President Hinckley was the only fully functioning member of the First Presidency for some time. Arthur wrote to President Hinckley,

In my forty-six years of close association with the last six presidents of the Church, I can say unequivocally that, to me personally, this is the greatest testimony of direct revelation I have ever witnessed....There is no doubt in my mind that the Lord strengthened President Kimball in mind and body and raised him up and inspired him to call [President Hinckley and Elder Maxwell.]

Continue reading...